"We Don’t Know What The Function Is Of “Junk DNA” So It Must Be Junk Even If There Is Biochemical Activity. "

This was never an argument for junk DNA. This was a straw man constructed by witch doctor creationists and muggle reporters. If you could refute the positive arguments for junk, you would have. You didn't because you can't, so we win the debate.

Onions??? That's all you have??? Did you ever try Spanish onion? Or a red onion? I know you did but you did not pay attention to it. I'm a home-chef, and a pretty good one and I know why the onions were designed the way they were. You have no clue and you never will. I kind of feel sorry for maggots like you. Do you have any idea how much paxil I proscribe to this kind of product of evolution that makes their fitness close to zero?

Vashti tells us he's practicing eugenics on his unsuspecting patients: "I kind of feel sorry for maggots like you. Do you have any idea how much paxil I proscribe to this kind of product of evolution that makes their fitness close to zero?"

Creationists have never been able to control their urge to eugenics. See Germany 1938-45. They used the same language, "maggots", except those creationists wouldn't have said "product of evolution."

Can you please tell us what medical school you're going to? They should know you prescribe drugs to your "maggot" patients not on the basis of their health or well-being, but rather to implement your eugenic beliefs.

Adaptive Immune SystemOh, you can list random terms and phrases from biology, I think I'm catching on now.

Influence Of Repetitive DNA On PhysiologyAlready known, doesn't in any way prove that what the evidence has told is is junk, suddenly isn't junk.

Alternative SplicingAlready know, doesn't in any way prove that what the evidence has told is is junk, suddenly isn't junk.

We Don’t Know What The Function Is Of “Junk DNA”... but countless experiments have told us it doesn't do anything with any kind of impact on survival or development. But it doesn't stop there, because we also know how and why various cellular mechanisms would result in the accumulation of junk. So, despite much initial resistance to the idea from "adaptationists", we simply had to conclude, on the evidence, that most of it probably is junk.

So It Must Be Junk Even If There Is Biochemical Activity.Except nobody goes through this kind of reasoning, it's an IDIOT strawman. As in, only an IDIOT would make and then believe in that strawman. One would make a special kind of idiot to frequent this specific blog and still MAINTAIN that strawman.

So lets see: I make a big ramdom sequence of DNA, add a bunch of enzymes, promoters, etc to the test tube, some of these will, by chance, obviously attach themselves to parts of the long DNA string that just happens to have matching sequences by chance and BUM, it's functional DNA?!?!

Do you have any actual arguments or do you just repeat IDiot non-sense that you read in creotard literature?

By the way, how's that revolutionary, paradigm-changing article that you'll be publishing soon comming along?

Laurence A. Moran

Larry Moran is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.

Sandwalk

The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Charles Darwin where he used to walk every day, thinking about science. You can see the path in the woods in the upper left-hand corner of this image.

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Subscribe to Sandwalk

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.